12/23/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board Member Questions and Comments Mr. Yager asked if there is a signed lease for the project. Mr. Richards replied there is a signed option and lease with the school board. Mr. Koeth said about six weeks ago they passed an ordinance to have the surrounding land accommodate a pole. Mr. O'Malley said it was a recommendation to City Council to rezone the parcel to allow it to be among the wireless telecommunications overlay district. The ordinance was approved by Council and signed by the Mayor recently. Mr. Spalding asked if Sprint will be using the school driveway to service the facility. Mr. Richards said there is an existing asphalt path that runs along the west property line. Mr. Koeth asked how wide the path is. Mr. Richards said the current configuration is about 8 feet. Mr. Koeth asked if they will extend it 10 feet further. Mr. Richards said yes, the code calls for an 18 foot width. Mr. Koeth asked if it will extend into the practice fields. Mr. Richards said it will not. They would be happy to reduce the width of the drive if that is the board's wish. There is no reason to have a two lane road. There was further discussion about the width of the maintenance drive. Mr. Richards said a 10 foot path would suffice for what they are looking to do. Mr. Koeth asked why the path will be at an angle instead of going straight out from the structure. He added that it looks like they are taking up more land that way. Mr. Richards said it follows right along to the south of the existing barbed wire fence. A stream flows through the parcel. The fence follows along the stream and they are following the existing fence. They are using the existing gate as the entrance gate into the actual stadium area outside from the practice field. Mr. Koeth asked if they would go into the practice field. Mr. Richard said that from the survey it would not go into the actual playing area but it would widen the path by roughly 2 feet, assuming the existing path is 8 feet. It would be widened to the east in order to stay away from the property line on the west side. Mr. Koeth asked why it has to be that location. He said why not throw it across the fence on the other side where they have the existing soil mound. Mr. Richards said they designed the site the way they did because the location they specified meets the 300 foot setback from the nearest residential property line. By moving it behind the existing bleachers, they would not meet the setback. Mr. Koeth asked how wide it is between that fence by the track to where the landscaping is. Mr. Richards indicated it is about 5 feet. Mr. Koeth said when people walk through there, they will walk over the landscaping since it is only 5 feet wide. It is the only entrance for anyone who parks at the high school to get into the stadium. He mentioned that children play in that area before the football games. Mr. Richards said they are not modifying the path at all. They are not narrowing it. They are inserting 5 feet of landscaping between the existing path, as it is configured, and the fence so it is not being narrowed beyond what it is right now. Mr. Koeth again pointed out the landscaping will be destroyed. He said it is a very busy area right next to the stadium and he wonders if any consideration was given to putting the tower on the other side of the field where there is nothing there. Mr. Richards said they would not meet the 300 foot setback from the nearest residential property. Mr. Koeth asked if the proposed location is the only place they can put the tower. Mr. Richards said it is the best place. Mr. Yager asked if it meets the 300 foot guideline. Mr. Richards said it does meet the guideline, as it is just over 300 feet from the western property line. Ms. Wenger asked if the applicant has a map showing all the locations on the property that do meet the 300 foot setback. Mr. Yager then said on sheet 2 of 2, it shows a 300 foot dimension. He sees 375 feet to the eastern property line. Mr. Koeth brought up the area by the shed and said nothing goes on over there. Mr. Richards asked for clarification on the shed area. They reviewed the plans. Mr. Richards said if they put the tower by the shed, they would be 50-70 feet from the easterly property line. Mr. Yager asked for clarification on the term "future co-locator." Mr. Richards said a future co-locator is any other carrier that would be interested in leasing space on the structure to place their antennas. It is similar to the situation at Clague Park where he believes there are 3 carriers on one tower. When Sprint designs a compound for a site they figure in room for at least 2 additional co- locators in the future. He said there are 5 other carriers that have licenses in this market. Mr. Koeth asked for the size of the boxes. Mr. Richards said their area is 16 x 20. It is the area that holds the power and BTS cabinets. He said they are roughly the size of a small refrigerator. There will be 2 at the site initially. They reserve the right and have the room for 2 more for their own use. Mr. Koeth asked if the co-locators will have the same cabinets. Mr. Richards said that more than likely they will not be the same. Several other carriers use a very small shelter similar to the one at Clague Park. Mr. Yager asked for the remote 2